Summations Only

Yes, indeed. AZ former Sheriff Arpaio was reportedly upset to learn that his own pardon from Trump was an admission of guilt. And Roger Stone (the one with the Nixon tramp-stamp tattoo that would have made him so popular in prison sex parties) took a commutation of his sentence instead of a pardon because he wanted to still have a chance to fight his conviction through appeals.Many federal crimes are also state crimes, so even if you're pardoned of a federal crime you could still be prosecuted for a state crime (though there's reportedly no federal crime of murder, but that may have changed because of the JFK assassination). However, I don't know whether accepting a pardon for a federal crime, hence admitting your guilt implicitly, would ensure your conviction under the corresponding state law. I don't think that that has been tested in court yet. Trump is pushing the law in so many different directions that I foresee law school being extended an extra year just to cover all the court decisions that he will generate.And as you pointed out, all that the President can pardon you for are federal crimes, but not for state crimes. Many federal crimes are also covered under state law, so even if you are pardoned for a federal crime you should still be liable for prosecution under a corresponding or related state law. Like the Trump clan's illegal business and tax dealings, including money laundering.Following up on my statement above, I recently heard murder discussed on the radio by a law graduate (some progressive radio hosts went to law school and even have law degrees, plus they often interview lawyers) in which he stated that to his knowledge there's no actual federal law against murder, but every state does have an applicable law -- the JFK assassination might have generated a federal law against murder, but he wasn't sure.Also, I do not think that a federal pardon would have any effect on a civil lawsuit. For example, OJ Simpson's acquittal for murder did not keep him from losing the corresponding civil wrongful death lawsuit. There are potentially more than 300,000 wrongful death civil lawsuits lining up to descend on Trump, Pence, and their COVID minions like a biblical swarm of murder hornets (an actual invasive species from Asia that is establishing itself in the Pacific Northwest; 1.75 inches long with potent neurotoxin venom).On top of all that, accepting a pardon eliminates your Fifth Amendment rights in connection with that particular crime -- you can no longer be prosecuted for that particular crime, so you can no longer use self-incrimination for that crime as an excuse for refusing to answer investigators' questions. So you can still be brought in for interrogation, only this time you must answer all their questions truthfully or else face new crimes of lying to investigators that you were not pardoned for.Trump seems to think that he can use pardons and the promise of pardons to silence his thugs and hence keep himself out of jail. Rather, those pardons will do the exact opposite as his thugs are compelled to sing of Trump's crimes like the biggest canary in your worst nightmare, or in Trump's.I would love to see the look on Trump's face when he finally realizes how deeply and thoroughly he has screwed himself. Maybe there will be a lottery for that, like the one I heard about for pushing down on the detonator to demolish his Atlantic City casino (it really takes a very stable genius businessman to make a casino go bankrupt in such a short time).Edited by dwise1, : Added "that would have made him so popular in prison sex parties"Edited by dwise1, : "the corresponding civil wrongful death lawsuit"Edited by dwise1, : "a very stable genius businessman"

Sure. Whatever. A lawyer can make up anything that he wants to. Until a court makes a decision on it -- or until that lawyer has to actually make an actual argument in front of a judge in court (which is where every single Trumpist "election fraud" claim falls immediately falls apart).Dude! I've been dealing with all kinds of lying creationists since 1981. And all kinds of lying Boy Scouts of America (BSA) professionals practicing religious discrimination since 1990.To paraphrase that third great American philosopher: "Weasel is as weasel says.
"

I wasn't thinking about issues of charging and retrying a federal pardon recipient under the state law for the crime in question. That does raise questions which I'm sure that are considered and addressed by prosecutors and grand juries.Rather, I was thinking about federal investigations that have been hindered and even prevented by uncooperative witnesses. In particular, I was thinking of federal investigations into what Trump and the 2016 Trump campaign, etc, that were massively obstructed by witnesses refusing to testify, even ignoring subpoenas, obviously at Trump's orders (either directly or indirectly) along with the implied promise of getting a pardon in the end.Mainly, I was thinking that the pardon would void the witnesses' 5th Amendment rights regarding questioning about their interactions with other players in the crime for which they have been pardoned. They are now immune to prosecution for that crime, but that immunity does not apply to their co-conspirators. And refusal to answer those question and/or responding with lies would expose them to prosecution for other crimes (namely obstruction and lying). And this time, there will be nobody to dangle yet more pardons in front of them.Now there's talk of Trump committing more crimes by giving out pardons in order to buy the recipients' silence. The report on that that I heard stated that Trump will most probably never be prosecuted for that, because the prosecutor would have to prove criminal intent and do so with evidence, something that is very rare in such cases. However, it would seem to me that the recipients of those pardons, now stripped of their 5th Amendment rights in these cases, could be motivated into testifying about communications from Trump or his minions promising them that pardon in exchange for their silence. 
ABE:
Refer to the interview with law professor Laurence Tribe on MSNBC's The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell tonight (indeed, it's running right now several minutes after I had first posted this reply).Here is the latter part of that interview from YouTube: In the earlier part of that interview (not in the video below) he covers the same issues that I talk about above, that recipients of those criminal pardons would have lost their 5th Amendment protections and so can be forced to testify against Trump in the matter of their pardon.
Edited by dwise1, : ABEEdited by dwise1, : Corrected spelling of Laurence Tribe's first name

I'm sure I recall that according to the reporting on Trump's speech (reported before the insurrection started) Trump directed them to march on the Capitol. Not only did he deliberately whip them into a frenzy, but he also pointed them in the direction he wanted them to go. It has been pointed out that these people, especially the ones who have entered the Capitol building, have been caught on camera. They will be identified and charged.We have already identified their ring leader, Trump. We need to remove him from office as quickly as possible in order to prevent further mayhem. The 25th Amendment would work the fastest, but every way I've read it requires the Vice President to initiate the process. Maybe this would restore Pence's spine, especially the way that Trump had placed Pence's own life in jeopardy.What I haven't heard anything about yet is whether the security of the electors' ballot counts had been maintained. ABE: News update
I just now heard reported that a Senate aide had grabbed the ballots and state affidavits and removed them to safety.Edited by dwise1, : ABE: News update

And possibly the first president to be convicted.He already made history in the first trial by having the first ever bipartisan vote to convict. In the trials of both Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton no senator of their own party voted to convict. In Trump's first trial, Romney voted to convict on one of the two counts. I took formal logic in my first semester in college. Our textbook offered as an example of argumentum ad hominem the story of a trial lawyer's brief instructing him: "We have no case. Attack the opposing attorney."Leading into the first impeachment, someone quoted an old adage among lawyers:

quote:

---

If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; if you have the law on your side, pound the law; if you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table and yell like hell.

---

Though as I recall, there was another stage in which you complain loudly about the process. Watching the House debates for the first impeachment I was struck by how every Democrat cited and argued the crimes in question while every single Republican (as I recall) completely ignored the crimes in question and only complained very loudly about the process -- actually several yielded their time to pedophile-enabler Jim Jordan who then launched into the same mindless harangue against the process.Now this second time I kept seeing pretty much the same thing from the Republicans, though this time they kept appealing hypocritically for unity (which for the past 12 years they've been working so hard against).